Half-time report: upper house

72 comments on “Half-time report: upper house”

1. Before we start, can we please save this thread for discussion of the upper house – please direct general election discussion to the earlier thread.

2. WRT the South West, the Nationals prefernces delivered this to the greens last time. Without this wouldn’t the CDP also be a challenger? I know Sullivan is a former MLA, but I’m not so sure his support his that high further south of the Mandurah coast. Actually, scratch all that – noticed the preference flows are very strong for Sullivan. Hmmm, could be 4 right, 2 left (no Green).

   An interesting one will be what will some of the small parties actually poll? While NCP & the independents wouldn’t normally get over 0.5%, is the Daylight Saving Party running any sort of campaign in the west? Their pref’s go to the Greens, – here I’m especially thinking about East Metro, where the Greens will end up with 2 indi’s (Nash & Hoyer) and the Daylight SP, but will it be enough to get them over the ALP’s 3rd?

3. If the Daylight Saving Party had a bit more of a profile, they could get quite a bit of votes. But I dont think it will happen.

4. Do the “Daylight Saving Party” hold their meetings at night?

5. It looks like the Liberals have all the preferences for the South Met Region apart from Greens, Labor and the Day Light Saving Party.
   It looks to be very tough for the greens to pick up the Third Spot.

6. Jacob, If we had a NO daylight savings party then they would get a lot of votes. The negative one issue parties have a better track record (cf no-pokies). Daylight saving is a sleeper (no pun intended) issue. Many who were in favour of daylight saving, although always the minority in 3 referendums, have turned off it.
   The DSP on the other hand don’t want another referendum. See http://daylightsavingwa.com/ . They want it introduced by parliament.

   Interestingly the Greens want a referendum as well, so why are they getting DSP preferences? I doubt if the Daylight Savings Party will have any effect on the Legistativel Council elections. Unless of course, as I thought as well at first glance, people think it is a party against daylight saving.

7. What did the CDP do to annoy the CEC in East metropolitan?

   Below the greens on the preferences seems so out of character for the CEC.

8. Insulted Lyndon LaRouche perhaps.

9. What happened to the party that Stott-Despoya distroyed

   Are they not even contesting this election, or have we decided that they were not worth mentioning?

10. Yes, Dovif, not one Australian Democrat candidate standing. They are still registered as a party, but so is Libs 4 Forests & Nurses 4 health, so I’m thinking they have given it away in WA for the time being. That said, they are running in Mayo & ACT, so haven’t quite disappeared altogether (plus I note their new President is a 30yo political scientist).

11. Stewart J
    It will depend on which of the FFP and CDP polls the most primary votes on who will be in the running for the sixth seat.

    In the 2005 state election FFP outvoted the CDP by nearly 2 to 1 in the Southwest region. It was the only region where the FFP outpolled the CDP.
    All other regions the CDP received more primary votes than FFP. In each case they exchange preferences.

    The CDP turned the Southwest votes around in their favour in the 2007 Federal election in the seat of Forrest and in the northern parts of Canning which roughly overlap the Southwest region. The CDP have the same candidate (John Lewis) for the Southwest as they had in the federal election for Forrest. Ultimately it may depend on how much of his own personal vote Dan Sullivan can add to the FFP.

12. Lenwx, not in the metro area. The last 3 referendums have all had a yes vote in the metro area. I would expect another yes vote in Perth and hence good support for the DLS Party if people knew it was out there. 6PR did a poll in March through an independent polling company called “Quick Ideas”, and the metro yes vote was 54% from a sample of 600 people (up from the 1992 referendum).

    I’ve voted Labor all my life, but for the first time ever I will not vote for them in the upper house this time, I will have to give my 1st vote to the DLS Party and then fill in all the boxes, so the ALP gets my prefence and not the Libs.

13. Re #11
    I wrote: “northern parts of Canning”. Of course I actually meant “southern parts of Canning” or the northern parts of the Southwest Region.

14. I’m surprised the Greens didn’t help the Libs4Forests and Dems get some dummy candidates to stand.

15. As promised, this post has now been expanded.

16. 14 Obelisk: Why would they want to do that? All it would do is split the Green vote, giving a bunch of preferences to the Liberals in the process.

    Anyways, I’m in East Metro, so I’ve been following that more than the others. There’s three independents on that list, who I did a bit of googling on:

    Tom Hoyer: used to be a councillor on the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. He made it into the Green Left Weekly in 2000, in the dying days of the Court government, protesting against sand mining and the closure of a mental hostel in Mundijong. He’s got the Nats, then Greens on his ticket… the only person preferencing the Nats second, which I guess you’d expect for someone not actually from Perth.

    Richard Nash has a fairly common name, which is the best way around of making yourself hard to Google-stalk. Whoever he is, his ticket runs left – right – Christian, so he’s probably more on the socially progressive side of the board. Anyone know who this guy is?

    John D Tucak, who William refers to as a serial independent (why?): there’s not much on him, but at least he’s easier to google. He sells used railway sleepers in Burswood, he might have once played bass in Blackfeather (that might’ve been a different guy, though), and he’s preferencing the Christians first, Greens last, and Labor above Liberal. Hmm. I wonder why a wood merchant’s running for parliament…

17. Birdofparadise@16
    I’ll let you into a little secret…in 2001 John D Tucak promised the Greens preferences (number 2’s even), to which the Greens agreed they would preference him after the Democrats. He then proceeded to reneg on the deal and ended up placing the next to Greens last (effectively last as it was after Louise Pratt – ALP #3 – & Norm Kelly – AD #1). I Know…I was there…so you can imagine what I think of John D Tucak…

18. Re John D Tucak – because he ran last time (and federally in 1993 and 1996), so his vote from then can be used in my calculation.

19. William

    Dee Margetts was the member for Agricultural not Mining and Pastoral. Para 2.

    The debate about 1 vote 1 value was a bit more nuanced than just rural-urban issues. I would rather WA had electoral reform referenda than DST referenda. 🙂 PR anybody for real 1v1v?

20. The Nationals putting the Greens after and Labor reduces the chance of rural Green winners. I guess they cut a deal with Labor in the hope for BoP. Any LC Nats are likely to have to share BoP, any way. Maybe not best for LC but may be LA strategic for Nats?

21. Thanks Disasterboy, corrected the Margetts error.

22. William,

    In South Metropolitan, the CDP preference flow is shown as:
    “Christian Democratic Party: Liberal; Greens; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Labor.”

    This doesn’t look right to me.

    Regards,

    Barry

23. Re the Greens chances in the Upperhouse.

    In EM and SM – As long as the ALP + Greens + DSP + some minor indies are greater than 57.1% then the Greens get a spot. More likely than not in EM but tough in both regions.

    In SW, M+P and NM – As long as ALP + Greens + DSP + some minor indies are greater than 3 quotas and the ALP are less than 41% of the vote then the Greens will pinch the last spot from the ALP.

    In AG the Greens require a miracle.

    Hi Disasterboy at 20. The Nats have not done a deal with the ALP because the ALP had nothing to give them. I suspect they have done a deal with the CDP to put the Greens last or alternatively have just decided to get rid of the Greens to reduce the competition for BOP. Curious decision given they need Greens preferences in Moore and Blackwood-Stirling.

24. Well spotted Barry, now corrected.

25. Hi Luke at 23
    I suspect the BOP theory. I don’t think they will get more than 1 from Ag. They would be better giving Greens ahead of Labor to increase chance of sharing BOP. But hey, they don’t read this. 🙂

26. Typical opportunist and unprincipled Greens behaviour. For supposed idealists they play selfish politics as well as anyone and better than most.

27. Adam@26
    And your remark is in relation to what?

28. Their preservation of the shameless gerrymandering of the WA Leg Council

29. Adam@28
    And how was this opportunist?

30. Re Adam at 28,

    What are you talking about?

    The new model for the Upper House makes life very difficult for the Greens. I fail to see how that is unprincipled and opportunist.

31. They insisted on the retention of the rural weighting in the upper house as the price of their support for the abolition of the lower house gerrymander.

32. But how is that opportunist if it makes life more difficult rather than less?

    It may be stupid but it is not opportunist.

33. Adam@31
    Actually, it relied on 1 MLC, without whom nothing could be passed. William makes mention of this in his opening piece. However I’m surprised you aren’t pleased with the generosity of the Greens for providing the ALP with another opportunity to govern.

    I might add that sometimes principles (allowing MP’s to be able to consider an issue on its merit and not be forced to follow a party ‘line’) can trip up good outcomes. Nonetheless, I would consider electoral reform in WA as ‘work in progress’ – who knows what might be possible after this election…

34. Kudos to Libs + Lab + Greens for doing some pretty big reforms of the WA system. Not quite 1:1 votes but way better than in the past. My understanding is that the Libs wanted 1:1 but Labor wouldn’t go that far and were able to convince the Greens to come to the table. Actually, considering the Labor government was dealing with an inherited situation with rural communities having more power, it seems to me all three parties had good reasons behind their positions, of which I heartily approve. Hopefully it’s just a step in some ongoing reform.

35. Selling out the principle of one vote one value in both chambers in the interests of getting more of your own members elected in rural rotten boroughs meets my defintion of opportunism. When the Qld Nats did it they were roundly condemned, but at least they believed in the principle of unequal representation.

36. Be that as it may, the Greens have no electoral betterment of their position from this. They’re worse off by comparatively weighting rural and more conservative votes over their current base in the cities. It’s definitely not opportunist.

    It might have been actually done for the reasons that were given for it.

    That said – 1:1 is much better in my books. Bit surprised and disappointed – though it is a work in progress. Sometimes change needs to be gradual – though it might have been a blunder to not get a genuine reform through while Lab/Grn had the chance. Why on earth would Labor be against 1v1v???

37. But Adam, the Greens didn’t improve their chances of getting members elected by introducing the 6×6 model. In actual fact, they decreased their chances of retaining North Metro and South West which were reduced from seven to six members.

    While there are many reasons to criticise the Greens and the 6×6 model, self interest is not one of them. Anyone with an understanding of the Upper House in WA should be able to see that.

38. Adam, I agree with your antagonists here – in particular Luke’s assessment that “it may be stupid but it is not opportunist”. Any number of one-vote one-value models would have been better for the Greens than this six-by-six arrangement.

39. *mutters darkly*

40. @ 29 Stewart J

    And how was this opportunist?

    The 6×6 upper house system was introduced by the Greens to provide their then sitting MP’s with seats to run for. Robin Chapple would have no chance of winning preselection for a metro-area or south west seat. Dee Margett’s chances would have been slim at best.

    Giz Watson supported this scheme (for reasons not clear), Jim Scott and Christine Sharp kept their distance from the issue.

41. I’m with William. I really don’t know why the Greens agreed to six member regions. They’ve made it harder for themselves to get elected in the two regions they represented on the marginal chance of winning seats in two of the other regions.

42. Hands Off Venezuala@40
    From your comments its clear you don’t know anything of the internal debate within the Greens WA. Chapple would have supported a single state-wide electorate model (or other variants, including those proposed by McGinty), as would Watson & Scott. Sharp initially was prepared to look at all models, but the need to bring Margetts on board required that a compromise be found (which actually lies in the Leg Assembly 1v1v model). Sharp as the GWA spokesperson on Electoral Reform then championed the 6×6 model. And Margetts has always been quite clear that she saw it as a matter of principle (of adequate rural representation & balancing competing – rural & urban – interests) irrespective of her chances of winning her seat back.

43. Stewart J

    Dee Margetts principle is the she wanted another term in parliament. All the stuff about principle and compromise is just smoke and mirrors designed to obscure naked ambition.

    Surely Mr “I know it all about the Greens” if 4 out of the 5 MLC supported a certain change to the electoral system why did the other one get their way? Are the 4 just gutless wonders?

    It all has a certain seafood smell doesn’t it?

    If Christine Sharp was the Greens spokeperson on electoral reform – why was the policy announced to the media by Giz Watson?

    Also your attempts to paint Robin Chapple is a straight up and down kind of a guy are charming to say the least!!!!

44. Hands off Venezuela
    Clearly you have some issues with the Green MLC’s. Your statement about Margetts is just plain wrong, which leads me to question your motives in this regard.
    As to you comment regarding myself – ‘Mr “I know all about the Greens”‘ – well, thats just being silly. I’ve been a member of the Greens for 18 years, which I haven’t hid from anyone here, and been involved in its core processes for much of that time. The reason why it was important to have Margetts on side was two-fold:
    1. The 5 MLC’s had agreed at the beginning of the 2001-05 term that they would work by consensus, and they attempted for all bills;
    2. The simple numbers of the Leg Council were that without Margetts the electoral reform bills could not be passed, either in 2002 (with a simple majority) or 2005 (with an absolute majority).

    Sharp was the spokesperson on electoral reform in 2001-02 when the Greens position was first discussed internally then made public. I have made no attempts to paint Chapple as being anything other than a person who would have supported a state-wide electorate model.

45. Stewart J

    I’m accepting what you say , but I do not understand why Greens Party (despite or inspite of Margetts required vote) simply called her bluff , because it seems to me th option Margetts has ‘forsed’ on Greens Party would be one of its worst options , and this is now a longterm negative , would hav thought this aspect of longterm electoral damage was worth more than 1 term of Margetts , even if thereafter she was ‘mischivous”

46. But Ron, surely it was better to get 1v1v through in at least the LA rather than nothing at all.

47. @46 Luke

    Furthermore
    Why has Margetts – so out of touch with Green sentiment on this issue been preselected for Agriculture again?

48. HOV @ 47

    I never asserted that Dee had no support on this issue within the party. Obviously it was a vexed issue for the Greens and one which had a number of differing views amongst the Party and the MP’s. I didn’t agree with her stance on this issue but many did.

    As to why Dee has been preselected again, the Greens are not a single issue party and support within the party does not turn on one issue alone. Dee was a great Senator and MLC and will continue to be great if elected again.

    However, see my comments at 23 as to the viability of AG for the Greens.

49. Luke @48

    I never said that you said she had no support. Just she was out of touch with the sentiment of the party. Also that was StewartJ’s claim not yours, I think.

    Your explanation seems to be that no one else wanted it because winning would be a miracle.

    Her 2001 election victory is widely considered a miracle.

    As for being a great senator – maybe but definitely not as great as the great socialist President Hugo Chavez!!!!!

50. Here’s something interesting… on the god-bothering side of the spectrum, there’s Gerard Goiran running for East Metro and his wife Madeleine running in Gosnells (lower house), both for the CDP. There’s also a Nick Goiran running in South Metro… except he’s with the Libs, and #2 on their ticket so he’ll most likely get in. He must be their son, going by the lunatic fringe Christian site below. (Trust me, I know they’re crazy… that’s how I got schooled when I was young. I wouldn’t wish it upon anybody.) Looks like the CDP are trying to get someone in parliament on another party’s ticket.

    http://www.cpcs.edu.au/national_board.htm